291
531

Abstract

The study of digital games by social sciences and humanities have been the subject of an academic debate since early 2000s. The questions of what games are, how they can/should be studied, and by implicationof the answers given to these questions, who can/should study them resulted in the well-known debate in the field named “Ludology vs. Narratology”. Both approaches which give their names to this debate were criticized for being overly formalistic and reductive. Through a literature review covering both parties and their critiques, this study aims to examine and discuss these two approaches, their critiques, and two alternative theoretical frameworks, Alexander R. Galloway’s algorithmic culture, and Ian Bogost’s procedural rhetoric, which seem promising in their potential to overcome the formalist limitations of these approaches.

Aarseth, E. (2006). How We Became Postdigital: From Cyberculture Studies to Game Studies. D. Silver ve A. Massanari, (Ed.), Critical Cyberculture Studies içinde (37-46). New York, Londra: New York University Press.